Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c.." <br />"'3 <br />o <br />CO transport alternative costs stretch beyond the present range of acceptable <br />cost-effectiveness. It is readily acknowledged that not all additional <br />costs and/or benefits of joint use could be identified or quantified at <br />this time. As such, the net Federal cost-effectiveness estimates are very <br />preliminary and subject to changing, site-sensitive cost conditions. <br />However, the ranges of displayed costs, even allowing for considerable <br />error in estimates, do give encouragement for more specific study of the <br />local use and coal slurry transport cases. <br /> <br />Tab 1 e 4. - Summary compari son of cost-effect iveness est imates <br />for major study alternatives <br /> <br /> Potent i a 1 TDS reduct i on Net Federal <br />Alternative salt removal at Imperi a 1 cost-effectiveness <br /> (1,000 tons) Dam (mg/L) in $/mg/L per year <br />Base Case (desalting <br />and evaporation <br />ponds) 1,600 160 1,400,000 - 2,000,000 <br />Long Distance Transport 768 - 1,975 77 - 198 1,850,000 - 5,130,000 <br />Local Use <br /> <br />Total potential <br />for 10 sites <br /> <br />LaVerkin Springs <br />McElmo Creek <br />Big Sandy River <br /> <br />Coal Slurry Pipeline <br /> <br />100 million tons <br />of coal <br />50 mi 11 ion tons <br />of co a 1 <br /> <br />878 <br /> <br />84 <br /> <br />(Representative range <br />as shown below) <br /> <br />795,000 <br />880,000 <br />519,000 <br /> <br />103 <br />60 <br />98 <br /> <br />8 <br />6 <br />8 <br /> <br />531 <br />183 <br /> <br />260,000 <br />518,000 <br /> <br />50 <br />15 <br /> <br />It is also useful to view cost estimates for promising alternatives from a <br />utility or industry viewpoint. Table 5 summarizes the Federal costs, <br />incremental costs for use that could be reimbursed to industry, and alter- <br />native costs (credits) from the sale of saline water supplies for the base <br />case and promising alteratives. <br /> <br />8 <br />